Re: [PATCH] doc:lock: remove reference to clever use of read-write lock

[Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@vaga.pv.it>]

On Monday, September 2, 2019 8:10:10 PM CEST Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@vaga.pv.it> wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 31, 2019 4:43:44 PM CEST Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> > > On Sat, 31 Aug 2019 15:41:16 +0200
> > > 
> > > Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@vaga.pv.it> wrote:
> > > >  several CPU's and you want to use spinlocks you can potentially use
> > > > 
> > > > -cheaper versions of the spinlocks. IFF you know that the spinlocks
> > > > are
> > > > +cheaper versions of the spinlocks. If you know that the spinlocks are
> > > > 
> > > >  never used in interrupt handlers, you can use the non-irq versions::
> > > I suspect that was not actually a typo; "iff" is a way for the
> > > mathematically inclined to say "if and only if".
> > > 
> > > jon
> > 
> > I learned something new today :)
> > 
> > I am not used to the mathematical English jargon. It make sense, but then
> > I
> > would replace it with "If and only if": for clarity.
> 
> While it's used in a number of places and it's pretty common wording
> overall in the literature, I agree that we should probably change this in
> locking API user facing documentation.

I would say not only in locking/. The argument is valid for the entire 
Documentation/. I wait for Jon's opinion before proceeding.

> If you change it, please do it in both places it's used.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	Ingo